Indeed. Three things. 1. Done ranting? Let's hope.2. "Don't care about your country." Another one of those delightful pieces of rhetoric.3. The USA isn't my country. Maybe you skipped that part.[/quote]

since you arent from the USA, then WTF are you doing commenting on American politics? I guess I wouldnt mind it so much if you had something insightful to say, but you really dont.

Also, Im not making sweeping and quite specific statements on how 50% of people think based upon who they voted for. Im saying that people who dont care are the same ones who are saying America is "good enough". Its kind of like me saying that people who dont care to bathe probably dont care if their hair is dirty either.

Ah, yes. Because I'm not from the USA, that automatically eliminates me from knowing anything about its politics? That's quite a nasty little global outlook you've got there.

Quote from: "unbreakable"

Also, Im not making sweeping and quite specific statements on how 50% of people think based upon who they voted for. Im saying that people who dont care are the same ones who are saying America is "good enough".

Do you actually look at what you write? "I'm not making a sweeping statement about a lot of people. I'm making a sweeping statement about a lot of people."You yourself was just saying that it was a "major" problem that a good portion of the US were these people who "dont care". Yeesh.

Ah, yes. Because I'm not from the USA, that automatically eliminates me from knowing anything about its politics? That's quite a nasty little global outlook you've got there.

No, but it certainly does disqualify you on having an opinion on whether there was any vote fraud. Unless you happened to observe our elections here? Maybe you work for Diebolt?

Quote

Quote from: "unbreakable"

Also, Im not making sweeping and quite specific statements on how 50% of people think based upon who they voted for. Im saying that people who dont care are the same ones who are saying America is "good enough".

Do you actually look at what you write? "I'm not making a sweeping statement about a lot of people. I'm making a sweeping statement about a lot of people."You yourself was just saying that it was a "major" problem that a good portion of the US were these people who "dont care". Yeesh.

Whatever. Keep picking on silly and irrelevant stuff you make up. It stops you from having to deal with the larger issue of your not having anything important to add.

Ah, yes. Because I'm not from the USA, that automatically eliminates me from knowing anything about its politics? That's quite a nasty little global outlook you've got there.

No, but it certainly does disqualify you on having an opinion on whether there was any vote fraud. Unless you happened to observe our elections here? Maybe you work for Diebolt?

How does it disqualify my opinion on whether there was US vote fraud? I did observe the US elections as much as you did, I'd wager; unless you were a vote counter yourself. I read newspapers, I watch TV, I listen to the radio, I use the internet, I talk to professors from one of the local university (though they're more concerned with the Ukraine elections). What more do you do that suddenly makes your opinion more valid than mine? How is it that simply living on the soil suddenly makes you more aware of election fraud?

Oh, and I do hope the Diebolt comment was an attempt at humour.

Quote from: "unbreakable"

Whatever. Keep picking on silly and irrelevant stuff you make up. It stops you from having to deal with the larger issue of your not having anything important to add.

You're entertaining to continue a debate with, if not just for the endless stream of irony you seem to present. Honestly. This statement alone is a barrel full. Ignore my comments with "whatever", or completely disregard other points when you're someone who's kicking and screaming about people who don't bother to look at data provided and "stick their heads in the sand" over matters (and that statement of yours alone, in the whole scheme of this debate, is quite hilarious).

Let's say I take that accusation seriously, shall we? Okay. What you call "silly and irrelevant" I call "details". If someone is arguing a point to me, that argument is full of those "details". If a few of those "details" are suspect, or just plain wrong, the argument is weakened. To say that I have "nothing important to add" to this debate seems to be another one of your parochially "anyone who doesn't believe me is ignorant" statements, so I'll do us both the pleasure of letting that one lie.

To finish this off, I'll just say that this debate has gotten woefully individual now, and I'm sure you, unbreakable, no doubt think I'm some foreign jerk that is some kind of "Bush-sympathizer" who's got his "head in the sand" over "the truth".All I'm going to do is tell you that you're wrong. To respond to that would be to personally insult you.

Let's say I take that accusation seriously, shall we? Okay. What you call "silly and irrelevant" I call "details". If someone is arguing a point to me, that argument is full of those "details". If a few of those "details" are suspect, or just plain wrong, the argument is weakened. To say that I have "nothing important to add" to this debate seems to be another one of your parochially "anyone who doesn't believe me is ignorant" statements, so I'll do us both the pleasure of letting that one lie.

To finish this off, I'll just say that this debate has gotten woefully individual now, and I'm sure you, unbreakable, no doubt think I'm some foreign jerk that is some kind of "Bush-sympathizer" who's got his "head in the sand" over "the truth".All I'm going to do is tell you that you're wrong. To respond to that would be to personally insult you.

The shame is that you think ad hominem is a valid debate form. It is not, and what your opinion of myself or what I say has very little bearing on the facts. You have been debating me and what I say, not fact. Thus, your statements are irrelevant, and dont address this matter. Just as I said.

What "details" have you debated? How does is my belief that people dont care about fraud having occured in any way alter whether it did or not? You are claiming my belief is silly without contesting a single allegation of vote fraud, of which there are a great many. So what, exactly, do you think you are bringing to the table in this 'debate'?

This "debate", as I see it, degenerated into a question of conflicting opinions pretty early on. All I've been doing thus far is trying to get you to understand that you need to consider more perspectives than your first one. On the other hand, I've been trying to gauge what your perspective is so I can better understand a pretty obviously heated issue from more than one side. What info you've provided is weak, and I was merely pointing out the madness in your method. So, sure, you could say I was debating what you say. Considering your argument has yet to be based on any evidence that have yet to be succinctly discredited by Rhinohelix, I'd say you can hardly blame me for not making a debate out of what you call "facts".

Don't get me wrong, it's been enlightening. And I agree whole-heartedly with you that too few people look into their surroundings and don't bother getting info on what matters to them. It's just becoming a little obvious that you're just as guilty of that as the uncaring masses you illustrate. Part of critical thinking is approaching an issue from several sides.

That said, if you're so frazzled by my apparently ghostly and non-existant contribution to this, then I'll respectfully give the baby his bottle and pull out.Take your shots and have the last say. I'm taking a page out of Rhinohelix's book, and agreeing to disagree.

This "debate", as I see it, degenerated into a question of conflicting opinions pretty early on.

You see, this is the primary crux of the problem. There is no 'opinion', here. There were incidences of reported vote fraud, and people will be going to jail over it. So my 'opinion' is not that there was vote fraud. There WAS vote fraud.

Quote

All I've been doing thus far is trying to get you to understand that you need to consider more perspectives than your first one. On the other hand, I've been trying to gauge what your perspective is so I can better understand a pretty obviously heated issue from more than one side. What info you've provided is weak, and I was merely pointing out the madness in your method. So, sure, you could say I was debating what you say. Considering your argument has yet to be based on any evidence that have yet to be succinctly discredited by Rhinohelix, I'd say you can hardly blame me for not making a debate out of what you call "facts".

The problem isnt that we have different opinions, its that one party is living in the world of reality, where investigations into vote fraud are being conducted, and will be prosecuted, and the other party is living in a fantasy world where nothing wrong occurred, every vote was conscienciously counted, and nobody would dare to violate the democratic principles which supposedly form the bedrock of our government.

Who cited that Democrats view the world as they wish to see it?

Quote

Don't get me wrong, it's been enlightening. And I agree whole-heartedly with you that too few people look into their surroundings and don't bother getting info on what matters to them. It's just becoming a little obvious that you're just as guilty of that as the uncaring masses you illustrate. Part of critical thinking is approaching an issue from several sides.

When one point of view is to ignore facts, than yes, I am completely insensitive to that viewpoint. However, I dont view that as a bad thing.

Quote

That said, if you're so frazzled by my apparently ghostly and non-existant contribution to this, then I'll respectfully give the baby his bottle and pull out.Take your shots and have the last say. I'm taking a page out of Rhinohelix's book, and agreeing to disagree.

As I said, I have no problem debating things. But when your 'debate' involves attacking me or my supposed blindness to a point of view, I feel obligated to point out that you have drifted away from a fact-based platform, and into the realm of a faith-based initiative. Note that I havent said a single bad thing about you, but you have just implied that I am narrow-minded and infantile. Which falls, once again, into the realm of ad hominem debate. Your failure to stick to facts is the problem, not any supposed narrowness of my view.

Which once again brings me to my question for Kirk: given the statistical analysis done comparing variations between exit polls and the actual results, do you find their claims of results being outside the margin of error ONLY in districts with electronic voting machines to be credible?

given the statistical analysis done comparing variations between exit polls and the actual results, do you find their claims of results being outside the margin of error ONLY in districts with electronic voting machines to be credible?

I personally can't back it up (too lazy to find sources).But a few TV news shows had reported that there were MUCH larger margin of errors in districts using electronic voting machines.

No, the primary crux of the problem is that you don't seem to actually read what I say.

Quote

other party is living in a fantasy world where nothing wrong occurred, every vote was conscienciously counted, and nobody would dare to violate the democratic principles which supposedly form the bedrock of our government.

You sound like a broken record. I'll repeat what I said last time. Provide a quote of mine where I ever said anything even remotely like that.

Funny that you, of all people, would accuse me ad hominem debating.

Thank you for proving to me that it is utterly pointless attempting to gain anything from a debate that you're involved in.

You can berate me some more. I'm going to stop posting in this thread before I pull a "Im done ranting" and follow up with several more pointless posts.

unbreakable, you really need to engage this "debate" or let it go. I posted reponses to all of your points earlier, which you convienently ignored.

Also, as Hout, et. al. is being peer reviewed, they are being destroyed. As it turns out, his "all counties with electronic machines blah blah" is actuallly turning out to be two counties, Palm Beach and Broward, skewing his results. This is reported here by Kevin Drum, no friend of the Right: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005196.php

So now we are down to what that will be debunked?

Rhino

Logged

Dance with the Devil and the Devil doesn't change. The Devil changes you.

considering the election was November 2nd, and investigations take time, and so do getting indictments, the fact that people arent being arrested right now is hardly proof that there was no wrongdoing.

Since you are playing devil's advocate in the vote fraud thing, what do you think about the stuff at http://blackboxvoting.org? Unless you are going to outright claim Bev Harris is a liar, it seems pretty damn convincing to me.